Nihil Obstat Posted June 15, 2011 Author Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1308150328' post='2254003'] "[b]Full communion will come.[/b] In our discussions, [b]Bishop Fellay recognized the Second Vatican Council, he recognized it theologically.[/b] Only a few difficulties remain..." --Cardinal Castrilló [/quote] Ooh, thanks for finding that for me.
Amppax Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308117435' post='2253941'] All of which I have continued to affirm. [/quote] sorry, wasn't trying to imply you weren't i'm just throwing that out there, because I just found that quote. The part that was interesting to me was the lines where it was saying the problems were doctrinal rather than discipline related, this would seem to imply a greater problem.
Vincent Vega Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1308150328' post='2254003'] "[b]Full communion will come.[/b] In our discussions, [b]Bishop Fellay recognized the Second Vatican Council, he recognized it theologically.[/b] Only a few difficulties remain..." --Cardinal Castrilló [/quote] Pope>Cardinal "The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church" (Ps., just for context, your quote is from an interview given to an Italian newspaper on 29 Jan 2009. The Pope quote is from a letter to the "Bishops of the Catholic Church", dated 10 Mar 2009.)
Nihil Obstat Posted June 15, 2011 Author Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308156054' post='2254047'] Pope>Cardinal "The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church" (Ps., just for context, your quote is from an interview given to an Italian newspaper on 29 Jan 2009. The Pope quote is from a letter to the "Bishops of the Catholic Church", dated 10 Mar 2009.) [/quote] I don't see how they can be interpreted as mutually exclusive. Cardinal Hoyos said only a few difficulties remain, and the pope said that these few difficulties are doctrinal.
Vincent Vega Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308156443' post='2254050'] I don't see how they can be interpreted as mutually exclusive. Cardinal Hoyos said only a few difficulties remain, and the pope said that these few difficulties are doctrinal. [/quote] Because of this: "Bishop Fellay recognized the Second Vatican Council, he recognized it [i]theologically[/i]". Does theology no longer include doctrine?
Nihil Obstat Posted June 15, 2011 Author Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308156527' post='2254051'] Because of this: "Bishop Fellay recognized the Second Vatican Council, he recognized it [i]theologically[/i]". Does theology no longer include doctrine? [/quote] I interpret that as meaning that he has agreed with the Vatican delegates that VII was a valid council and that his problem is not with the council itself. Saying that he recognized it theologically doesn't imply that he has dropped all criticism of it. Just like, while everyone in the SSPX agrees that John Paul II was a valid pope, that doesn't mean that they can't disagree with some of the things that he did as pope. Like the Assisi meeting, for instance.
Vincent Vega Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308156889' post='2254054'] I interpret that as meaning that he has agreed with the Vatican delegates that VII was a valid council and that his problem is not with the council itself. [/quote] So if his problem isn't with the council, what is it with?
Nihil Obstat Posted June 15, 2011 Author Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308157186' post='2254056'] So if his problem isn't with the council, what is it with? [/quote] Not with the Council as a whole, but with some specific parts of it. Just like I can disagree with John Paul II kissing the Koran, but not dispute that he was a valid pope.
Vincent Vega Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308158335' post='2254062'] Not with the Council as a whole, but with some specific parts of it. Just like I can disagree with John Paul II kissing the Koran, but not dispute that he was a valid pope. [/quote] Except the Pope said the differences are doctrinal. That's kind of a big deal. Like saying, "Oh yeah, I'm Catholic and all, but that whole Transubstantiation thing is silly."
Amppax Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308158427' post='2254063'] Except the Pope said the differences are doctrinal. That's kind of a big deal. Like saying, "Oh yeah, I'm Catholic and all, but that whole Transubstantiation thing is silly." [/quote] this (excusing the hyperbole) was my thought
Nihil Obstat Posted June 15, 2011 Author Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308158427' post='2254063'] Except the Pope said the differences are doctrinal. That's kind of a big deal. Like saying, "Oh yeah, I'm Catholic and all, but that whole Transubstantiation thing is silly." [/quote] Saying that a disagreement is doctrinal does not imply that level of difference.
KnightofChrist Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) A big reason for the doctrinal talks between Rome and the SSPX is clarification on what Vatican II teaches, distinguishing between what is the hermeneutic of discontinuity of the spirit of the Council, and the hermeneutic of reform of the Council. Benedict himself acknowledges that there has since the time of the council confusion between the hermeneutic of discontinuity, and the hermeneutic of reform of the Council. He even acknowledges a great portion of what has said to have been of Vatican II over the last 50 years has been part of the hermeneutic of discontinuity. The SSPX's doctrinal issues do not necessarily mean they reject doctrine, but there is doctrinal confusion over what the Council teaches and what it doesn't. Edited June 15, 2011 by KnightofChrist
Nihil Obstat Posted June 15, 2011 Author Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1308159549' post='2254070'] A big reason for the doctrinal talks between Rome and the SSPX is clarification on what Vatican II teaches, distinguishing between what is the hermeneutic of discontinuity of the spirit of the Council, and the hermeneutic of reform of the Council. Benedict himself acknowledges that there has since the time of the council confusion between the hermeneutic of discontinuity, and the hermeneutic of reform of the Council. He even acknowledges a great portion of what has said to have been of Vatican II over the last 50 years has been part of the hermeneutic of discontinuity. The SSPX's doctrinal issues do not necessarily mean they reject doctrine, but there is doctrinal confusion over what the Council teaches and what it doesn't. [/quote] Yes, this.
Vincent Vega Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 I think I found our problem. The Cardinal said that Bishop Fellay had accepted Vat II. In the same letter that the quote from the Pope came from, he says: "Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. [b][i]The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions.[/i][/b] An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope." In light of this, I am now interpreting KofC's quote as referring to only a "few difficulties" before "full communion" as applying to the individuals involved with the SSPX, not the society itself.
Aloysius Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308159716' post='2254072'] In light of this, I am now interpreting KofC's quote as referring to only a "few difficulties" before "full communion" as applying to the individuals involved with the SSPX, not the society itself. [/quote] That ignores the context of the quote. There are few doctrinal difficulties for the SSPX delegates that remain according to Castrillion. if the SSPX delegates agree, if Fellay agrees as the Superior General, then the Society enters full communion. some individuals involved in the SSPX may rebel, but they will have to form a splinter group if they do. those involved in the discussions in Rome speak for the society, not for themselves as individuals. The agreement will obviously not declare that all Catholic have to hold the clarified SSPX viewpoints, but that the clarified SSPX viewpoints are allowed to be held by Catholics. as to what the doctrinal difficulties are, which particular things need clarified on both sides, that's above our paygrade. if Fellay recognizes the council theologically, then there's something specific about certain interpretations of parts of the council that still need to be hashed out. we don't know what details those are, but I imagine any reconciliation and normalization of canonical status will include some type of joint statement from the SSPX and Rome. Edited June 15, 2011 by Aloysius
Vincent Vega Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308167159' post='2254127'] as to what the doctrinal difficulties are, which particular things need clarified on both sides, that's above our paygrade. if Fellay recognizes the council theologically, then there's something specific about certain interpretations of parts of the council that still need to be hashed out. we don't know what details those are, but I imagine any reconciliation and normalization of canonical status will include some type of joint statement from the SSPX and Rome. [/quote] So are you considering Fellay and the SSPX to be one-in-the-same? (I'm not being snooty, I merely want clarification as I consider you easily one of the most learned around these parts.)
Aloysius Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1308118688' post='2253942'] What does this mean, exactly? Seems to me that it could imply such severe consequences as causing illicit confection of the Eucharist or excommunication latae sententiae of those who are attempting to exercise the ministries that they do not legitimately hold. Am I way off on this? [/quote] there is only a latae sentantiae interdict for those who attempt to confect sacraments without being ordained to the priesthood (cf. canon 1378 §2). SSPX priests are ordained, so this does not apply to them. this is the canon that applies: Can. 1381 §1 Anyone who usurps an ecclesiastical office is to be punished with a just penalty. §2 The unlawful retention of an ecclesiastical office after being deprived of it, or ceasing from it, is equivalent to usurpation. just penalties are determined by the ecclesiastic authority. thus far, the only penalties declared are the latae sentantiae suspensions. all priests of the SSPX are under a suspension [i]a divinis[/i] with the exception of Bishop Tissier, who incurs an automatic suspension [i]a collatione ordinum[/i] for a year each time he ordains, under canon 1383, and those ordained by him are automatically under suspension [i]a divinis[/i] the OP has indicated the possibility of an Ordinariate for the SSPX. if that is true, that would make them freer to act around the world than the FSSP, and they would no longer be prevented from ordaining under canon 1383 as those who joined the ordinariate would be their proper subjects.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 15, 2011 Author Posted June 15, 2011 Specifically on the Ordinariate structure, would that imply that they could operate in any diocese they want without the permission of the local Ordinary?
Vincent Vega Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1308168536' post='2254154'] there is only a latae sentantiae interdict for those who attempt to confect sacraments without being ordained to the priesthood (cf. canon 1378 §2). SSPX priests are ordained, so this does not apply to them. this is the canon that applies: Can. 1381 §1 Anyone who usurps an ecclesiastical office is to be punished with a just penalty. §2 The unlawful retention of an ecclesiastical office after being deprived of it, or ceasing from it, is equivalent to usurpation. just penalties are determined by the ecclesiastic authority. thus far, the only penalties declared are the latae sentantiae suspensions. all priests of the SSPX are under a suspension [i]a divinis[/i] with the exception of Bishop Tissier, who incurs an automatic suspension [i]a collatione ordinum[/i] for a year each time he ordains, under canon 1383, and those ordained by him are automatically under suspension [i]a divinis[/i] the OP has indicated the possibility of an Ordinariate for the SSPX. if that is true, that would make them freer to act around the world than the FSSP, and they would no longer be prevented from ordaining under canon 1383 as those who joined the ordinariate would be their proper subjects. [/quote] Interesting, thanks for the correction.
Recommended Posts